![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 1, 1:49*am, LimaZulu wrote:
First flight of Front Electric Sustainer - FES http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNOKq6PKIvM Regards, Luka Znidarsic I've got an empty engine bay in my Apis, always thought an electric motor would be a nice thing to put in there. The doors for the prop can handle a 46" dia. blade. Brad |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This looks like a natural for a single blade prop, folding flush into
a contoured recess in the bottom of the nose. I like it! Kirk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:51:45 -0800, kirk.stant wrote:
This looks like a natural for a single blade prop, folding flush into a contoured recess in the bottom of the nose. That would be nice to see from a propeller efficiency point of view too, because the prop could be bigger while absorbing the same power. The bigger the prop the more efficient it is. Propeller ground clearance would be irrelevant for a sustainer system. I remember seeing an Antares 20E and an ASW-22ble launch within 10 minutes of each other, so the ground and air conditions were very similar. The ASW-22 has 49hp (36 kW) and (I think) a 0.9m diameter prop while the Antares swings a 2m prop with a 47 kW motor. The Antares was off the ground in about 1/3 the run the '22 needed and climbed out at least twice as fast. I don't know how the takeoff weights would compare, but if they're not too different the additional 30% power output in the Antares wouldn't account for the takeoff and climb out difference I saw, but the different props could easily do it. A two blade prop is rather more efficient than a 5 or 6 blade unit and the almost 5:1 difference in swept area would make a big difference to drive efficiency, especially at low speeds. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
kirk.stant wrote:
This looks like a natural for a single blade prop, folding flush into a contoured recess in the bottom of the nose. I like it! Kirk Another good idea from the model world :-). Needs a hefty counterweight at those dimensions of spinner (small) and prop (large) though. /AndersP |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The HPH 304S Turbine sustainer glider | kd6veb | Soaring | 2 | September 23rd 09 05:10 AM |
would an electric sustainer be practical | Brad[_2_] | Soaring | 7 | July 24th 09 06:29 PM |
Sustainer engine ignition noise (Solo2350) | Per | Soaring | 8 | January 4th 07 05:56 AM |
DG goes the sustainer option. | Paul | Soaring | 25 | June 4th 04 12:16 AM |
Chasing the front | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 7 | April 21st 04 01:09 PM |